I see the term ABSTRACT used quite a bit in the Earth, Sea, and Sky forum critiques. The majority of the time I disagree with its usage. So I'm curious - and do not consult a dictionary first! - what is or what are some of the defining elements of an abstract image to you?
Good question Michael. Sorry to add an NSN link here, but I have been following this thread over on NSN and I have found it very interesting. One contributor talks about how many flora and macro postings are tack sharp, and anything that seems to push the envelope of DOF or blur is termed 'abstract'.
I don't know that I have a good answer, but I have enjoyed thinking about it. I have also been shooting in a more abstract (from the definition that you talk about) myself because of this analysis.
To me an abstract image is more about shapes, lines and color, and is ususlly more up close. As John said, when it's difficult to immediately define what it is. For instance, a shot of just reflections on water, as opposed to the entire lake or river and its surroundings. Even though I seem to be shooting broader landscapes lately, I really enjoy an "abstract" image. It holds some mysterious qualities and helps me to appreciate the little details.
Abstract is something I very rarely see in ESS. To me abstract is the immediate unidentifyable joining of shapes, forms and colors. Sometimes definition of the real underlying image is unveiled after extensive review.
Many claim intimates are abstracts. Like you I disagree, but I don't have a spine or nads to point this out.
Some images that come to mind as being abstract to me are some of Tony Kuyper's sandstone images. I think Anil Rao's EP last year is also a good example.
Posted by Eric Fredine on June 22, 2006 at 5:35 PM
I think of 'abstraction' as one of (two) ways I look at images.
When I look at a photograph (or a painting for that matter) I see it in terms of the literal subject matter (ie. what is this a representation of) and at the same as a two dimensional plane with lines, forms and colours which I think of as an 'abstraction' of the image (ie. what it looks like to me if I don't think of it in terms of subject matter at all). For some images, only the abstraction exists because I can't perceive or recognize any subject matter - I suppose this is what I would call an abstract photograph (or painting) - though I don't find this designation particularly useful.
I guess an image can be considered more or less abstract based on how obvious the abstract properties of the photograph are relative to the literal subject matter (ie. is my first reaction something like 'that's a fascinating pattern' or 'that's a picture of a bunch of branches').
I think Pete D is on track. For me an abstract image is one that is made up of shapes, colors, textures that aren't easily seen as an identifiable object or scene.
Occasionally, in critiquing a photograph, I use the tern near-abstract. I mean that the image, while identifiable, has strong graphic elements that, taken out of context, would still provide artistic beauty, intrigue or appeal.
Sometimes we appreciate a photo because we see the beauty in nature - a bird or a mountain, a flower or a seashore. But sometimes it is the shapes and colors themselves, rather than the photographic subject or scene, that we see as the primary elements of the photo.
As photographers, to make an abstraction that appeals to us or to others as art, is not an easy thing to do. But it certainly is a desireable thing to do, if that is one's artistic bent.
Posted by Eric Fredine on June 23, 2006 at 1:45 AM
"taken out of context"
This is one way to emphasize the abstract qualities over the literal subject matter. But it is a means to an end and there are other ways - probably many other ways. I wouldn't want to define 'abstraction' in terms of the way it is achieved.
And I think the challenge is to avoid pursuing abstraction simply for the sake of making an abastract...
I think that there are at least two ways into abstract photography. One is what replies so far were talking about: photo of an essence of a subject, in form of lines, forms, textures and tones of colour, but with unrecognisable subject. The other way is to abstractise known subjects. This group contains things such as long exposures of a grass field in windy day, all sorts of camera movements during long exposure, probably even painting with light of different colour and such things. Of course the line between defeated and undefeated isn't always all that sharp. So it is possible to talk about more or less abstract photos.
The fashion for taking pictures of moving water so it looks like fog (or anything but actual moving sparkling, glassy water) is certainly a move toward abstraction.
My interests are concrete, for the most part: I rarely take, and rarely enjoy, pictures that don't look like what they were in reality. It's an area of art that just does not appeal (the paintings I choose are sometimes impressionistic, but more often somewhere between that and photographically realistic.)
This is, of course, a purely personal preference, and intends no disrespect to those whose tastes are other than mine.
Impressionism and beyond, applied to photography. Form, boundary, shadow, and color dominate over identifiable elements. Abstract may indeed be 'taken out of context', but an identifiable element may be a study in the abstract also.
When I think of abstracts I visualize patterns or designs found in nature. Most often the patterns are repetitious. A close up shot of the patterns on the wings of certain butterflies or moths would be an abstract. Silhouetted branches can form or outline abstract patterns or shapes. Contrast between light and shadow can create an abstract pattern; sand dunes are good subjects for that. Zooming in or out on a subject while holding down the shutter creates some interesting abstracts too. That is what abstract means to me.
No need to look at a dictionary to guess that Abstract comes from the same Latin root as Absent or Abstruse. "Abs" means something is missing or deliberately ommitted. In this case something is left out of the image for the viewer to fill in using their own sensibilities. I agree with Pete that the missing "something" is context.
Not meaning to be flippant, and as you already have some great answers to your question, but, I find I have a lot more "Abstracts" in my files than I original categorized the images if I have someone who specifically asks for an Abstract :-).
imo, a [i]successful[i] abstract is an image where context is absent, but the image still connects with the viewer through other substantive or ordered elements. If substance and/or order is also lacking, then I think you end up with chaos.
Images can have strong abstract qualities without being entirely abstract. I see a lot of 'hybrid' images that combine context with elements/qualities frequently associated with abstract images. Those are often favorites of mine when they strike a pleasing balance, stimulating the imagination while offering just the right amount of suggestive context.
Discussion
14 repliesI don't know that I have a good answer, but I have enjoyed thinking about it. I have also been shooting in a more abstract (from the definition that you talk about) myself because of this analysis.
Good topic.
Nathan
Many claim intimates are abstracts. Like you I disagree, but I don't have a spine or nads to point this out.
Some images that come to mind as being abstract to me are some of Tony Kuyper's sandstone images. I think Anil Rao's EP last year is also a good example.
When I look at a photograph (or a painting for that matter) I see it in terms of the literal subject matter (ie. what is this a representation of) and at the same as a two dimensional plane with lines, forms and colours which I think of as an 'abstraction' of the image (ie. what it looks like to me if I don't think of it in terms of subject matter at all). For some images, only the abstraction exists because I can't perceive or recognize any subject matter - I suppose this is what I would call an abstract photograph (or painting) - though I don't find this designation particularly useful.
I guess an image can be considered more or less abstract based on how obvious the abstract properties of the photograph are relative to the literal subject matter (ie. is my first reaction something like 'that's a fascinating pattern' or 'that's a picture of a bunch of branches').
Cheers,
Eric
Pete D.
Occasionally, in critiquing a photograph, I use the tern near-abstract. I mean that the image, while identifiable, has strong graphic elements that, taken out of context, would still provide artistic beauty, intrigue or appeal.
Sometimes we appreciate a photo because we see the beauty in nature - a bird or a mountain, a flower or a seashore. But sometimes it is the shapes and colors themselves, rather than the photographic subject or scene, that we see as the primary elements of the photo.
As photographers, to make an abstraction that appeals to us or to others as art, is not an easy thing to do. But it certainly is a desireable thing to do, if that is one's artistic bent.
This is one way to emphasize the abstract qualities over the literal subject matter. But it is a means to an end and there are other ways - probably many other ways. I wouldn't want to define 'abstraction' in terms of the way it is achieved.
And I think the challenge is to avoid pursuing abstraction simply for the sake of making an abastract...
Marko
My interests are concrete, for the most part: I rarely take, and rarely enjoy, pictures that don't look like what they were in reality. It's an area of art that just does not appeal (the paintings I choose are sometimes impressionistic, but more often somewhere between that and photographically realistic.)
This is, of course, a purely personal preference, and intends no disrespect to those whose tastes are other than mine.
Elizabeth
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
Guy
Not meaning to be flippant, and as you already have some great answers to your question, but, I find I have a lot more "Abstracts" in my files than I original categorized the images if I have someone who specifically asks for an Abstract :-).
Regards, Simon
Images can have strong abstract qualities without being entirely abstract. I see a lot of 'hybrid' images that combine context with elements/qualities frequently associated with abstract images. Those are often favorites of mine when they strike a pleasing balance, stimulating the imagination while offering just the right amount of suggestive context.